REVEREND AL SHARPTON, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Ed. And thanks to you for tuning in. I`m live tonight in Washington, D.C.

We begin with breaking news. Bold action planned by the president to reform our broken immigration system. "The New York Times" reports President Obama could protect up to five million undocumented immigrants from getting deported and he may announce his plan as soon as next week, fulfilling a promise he made in his second inaugural address.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: The president`s executive action could mock a huge step forward. And it is also setting up a huge showdown with the GOP.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I`ll just say this. We`re going to fight the president, tooth and nail if he continues down this path. This is the wrong way to govern. This is exactly what the American people said on Election Day they did not want. And so, all the options are on the table. We`re having discussions with our members and no decision has been made as to how we will fight this if he proceeds.

Our goal here is to stop the president from violating his own oath of office and violating the constitution. It is not to shut down the government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: All options are on the table. Stop the president from violating his oath of office? What is he talking about? Impeachment? And then his goal may not be to shut down the government, but it sure looks like that is what some of his members want.

"The Wall Street Journal" says more than 50 house lawmakers have signed a letter saying that language barring the president from acting alone should be attached to legislation needed to keep the government operating after December 11th, when its current funding expires.

If you put that into plain English, it is clear what Republicans are plotting. Yet another government shutdown. And some on the right are itching for it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Quickly before I let you go? Any chance you would seek to de-fund things like the department of justice, you know, other departments that might participate in this plan? That is the big --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We really want to fund the department. What we don`t want to fund is only one thing. We don`t want to fund a -- the ability to prevent id cards and checks on these individuals and give them legal status.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: De-fund this or that agency, gin up another budget shutdown, shutdown the government. It`s governing by crisis and by threat. But the president won`t be intimidated. He is not backing away from doing the right thing.

Joining me now are Dana Milbank and Maria Teresa Kumar, thank you both for being here.

MARIA TERESA KUMAR, PRESIDENT, CEO, VOTO LATINO: Thank you, Reverend.

DANA MILBANK, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Thanks, Rev.

SHARPTON: So Dana, speaker John Boehner says all options are on the table if the president moves on immigration. What is he really talking about? Impeachment? Government shutdown? What is he talking about?

MILBANK: Well, there is three options I can think off. One, is they can try to sue him again. Remember when they sue him with the Obamacare? Actually they never even filed a lawsuit.

SHARPTON: What happened to the lawsuit?

MILBANK: They decided maybe that was not such a good idea. It doesn`t really work to sue the president. You could go ahead and attempt impeachment or you could attach this to something that absolutely has to go through like something keeping the government running thereby prompting a shutdown. The problem is, Republicans have said explicitly McConnell, Boehner, and they have been campaigning on this saying we`re not going to have a government shutdown. We`re not at all interested in impeachment. You know, when they tried to attach Obamacare to funding the government, they lost that shutdown battle.

Immigration reform is much more popular than Obamacare. So you can imagine which way this is going to go.

SHARPTON: You know talking about immigration, Maria, "the New York Times" had several details about what the president`s plan on immigration included. It would allow undocumented parents with American children to obtain legal work documents, it would provide more protection for undocumented immigrants who came here as children and it would create more opportunities for immigrants with high tech skills.

Now, how much of -- how much do these measures get at the overall problem, Maria?

KUMAR: It starts to (INAUDIBLE). And I think what the president is providing is a blueprint of what he would like Congress to look at. He recognizes that he can`t go full force and provide relief for all 11 million. But he says we need to do something.

I think the fact that John Boehner is saying the president is doing something that might be unconstitutional, he forgets that the president is a constitutional lawyer. He is very well versed. And he is not the first president that will actually taking executive action to provide relief for immigrants. And this actually -- this type of exercise actually dates back to president Eisenhower who he, actually, who also did something very similar, but most recently, president Reagan and Bush where they provided relief for over 1.5 million immigrants, recognizing that they are unfortunately if Congress doesn`t move there has to be some type of relief.

So again, the president is not acting unilaterally. There is president. And more importantly, he is saying -- he is calling the Republicans` bluff. He is saying you have to act on immigration. It is a broken system, we have 11 million people living within our borders that we don`t know who they are. Until you do something, I`m going to stand firm and deal with it today, figuratively, but today.

But you know, Dana, I mentioned that we are hearing rumblings about a government shutdown from some of the Republicans. But listen to this from the house appropriations chair, Hal Rogers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAL ROGERS, APPROPRIATIONS CHAIRMAN: There is no one more strong than me against unilateral action than the president on this subject. However, like it has been said before, don`t take a hostage you can`t shoot. I don`t want a shutdown. And I don`t want the threat of a shutdown because that doesn`t serve our purposes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Don`t take a hostage you can`t shoot. I don`t want a shutdown. Are we about to see a big fight in the GOP between the tea party and the GOP establishment, Dana?

MILBANK: Well, you know, certainly Ted Cruz has no problem shooting his policy hostages. So yes, there is going to be that struggle in there. But there is something to be said -- maybe it would have been better if the president did this early on. But there is also something to be said for getting it out of the way as fast as possible so they can huff and puff about poisoning the well and tooth and nail and red flags in (INAUDIBLE) and everybody can go home for the holidays, and they can start over again.

I mean, the well was pretty well poisoned to start with. So, it is not exactly a great time for any sort of legislation to be passing. So the president is not taking that huge of a risk here.

SHARPTON: Maria, I hear you chiming in?

KUMAR: I think that is absolutely right. The well has already been poisoned. Now that Mitch McConnell is the majority leader, it doesn`t mean that he is actually going to play well with -- for president, especially when he has a more tea party Senate and Boehner has a more tea party Congress. I think that what the president needs to do is he needs to move more boldly and he needs to move quickly and provide them the space they need come the new Congress so they can craft a piece of policy that will actually amendable to the American people.

SHARPTON: Now, you know, some Republicans won`t explicitly threaten a shutdown, Dana, but are threatening to defund certain program. Congressman Tom Cole told "the Washington Post," your people, quote, "you can issue all the executive orders you want, if you don`t have any money to enforce them they don`t go very far. We`re going to be pretty aggressive in using the power of the purse." Could they do real damage here?

MILBANK: Well, they have that power. That is what Congress can do. But the president can veto it. And then you`re stuck with the question of a government shutdown and who gets blamed for it.

Now, we saw what happened a little over year ago in October over Obamacare. I suspect, and that is why you hear Hal Rogers saying that, they don`t want to take that risk again. But you know, if the Congress doesn`t like, the first thing they should is pass an immigration legislation and if they can`t get their act together to do that, well, then they can take on the president with the power of the purse and see how it plays with public opinion.

SHARPTON: Maria, isn`t that the options, though? Does the president move forward or the Republicans ought to come up with an immigration reform plan?

KUMAR: Well, this is the thing, the president can move forward. And the moment that they provide something for him to sign, the executive action becomes obsolete. So, it doesn`t overwrite legislations. It is basically kind of a stop gap measure until legislation comes.

Let`s not forget we have 11 million people here that are living in our shadows, that we don`t know who they are, and are living in constant fear, that are getting exploited by different employers. And the American people are suffering at the same time because they unfortunately are competing unfairly for wages, because they can`t have -- there are a lot of folks that are going to paid under the table. So what the president is trying to do is a stop-gap measure saying, I will do an executive action until Congress, you actually give me something that I can sign.

SHARPTON: But, Maria, let`s not forget the Senate has passed an immigration bill over 500 days ago, I think it is the 503rd day, 1200 Republicans voted for. I mean, bipartisan, it is not like there is not a bill for them to vote on. Looks like 14 Republicans, I believe.

KUMAR: That is exactly right. And they actually have an opportunity in the Senate in the lame-duck session to pass that. If I were John Boehner, I would actually try to pass it now where I have less tea party headaches to deal with than the new Congress.

He could actually galvanize right now the majority of the folks in the House if he does not -- I mean, he keeps referring to the Hastert rule saying he needs x amount of Republicans to pass it. He actually -- Hastert himself has said, the Hastert rule doesn`t exist. If he would pass it on the floor today, if he would actually presented it on the floor, it would pass today with the Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, he is choosing not to.

SHARPTON: Dana, bottom line is for me, are we going to have immigration reform by the end of the year?

MILBANK: We are going to have it. The question is, will it be a temporary one that the president will extend as long as this president is in office. Or is there a long shot that Republicans in Congress say fine, we`ll cut a deal. I wouldn`t count on it.

SHARPTON: Dana Milbank and Maria Teresa Kumar, thank you both for your time tonight.

MILBANK: Thanks, Reverend.

KUMAR: Thank you, Reverend.

SHARPTON: Straight ahead, the immigration fight and the Obama legacy. What the president`s strategy could mean for the next two years.

Plus, it is a big day for anyone fighting for a level playing field. Elizabeth Warren just got a new leadership job.

And this.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYING)

SHARPTON: It`s the right wing`s glory days, attacking Bruce Springsteen, even if it makes no sense. Conversation nation is ahead.

SHARPTON: Our social community sounded off on Senator Elizabeth Warren`s new leadership position today.

Ray wrote, the Dems need to get tough and get things done. Senator Warren will see to that.

Ruth says, she is an asset to the Democratic party if they are smart enough to cooperate with her.

John posted, about time. This is what we need.

More on that role ahead. And please keep the conversation going on our facebook page or tweet us @pliticsnation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: We`re back with breaking news, President Obama`s historic plan on immigration. It is an issue that has confounded presidents of both parties for a generation.

Over the years, many have tried to deal with the immigration through executive action.

In 1987, President Reagan deferred the deportation of children in over 100,000 families.

In 1997, President Clinton gave deferrals to 40,000 people.

In 2002, the president suspended elements for green card holders.

But nothing in recent history has been on this scale. President Obama`s plan is expected to protect five million undocumented immigrants from deportation. Ever since the midterms, the president has been clear he intends to take bold action, despite ugly rhetoric and threats from the right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The principles that we`re fighting for -- the thing that is motivate me every single day and motivate my staff every day, those things are not going to change. More than anything, what I want to communicate over these next two years, is the promise of possibility of America.

I still consider this the best job on earth. And I am going to try to squeeze every last ounce of possibility and the ability to do good out of this job in the next two years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Today`s news shows the president meant those words. The president came into office vowing change. We saw it with health care and bank reform. And now immigration reform stands to become another piece of the Obama legacy.

Joining me now is professor Allan Lichtman, presidential historian at American University. Thank you for here, professor.

ALLAN LICHTMAN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: My pleasure.

SHARPTON: Put this move into immigration in a perspective, how significant is this?

LICHTMAN: This move is of great significance, but it is not as Republicans have charged an unprecedented use of executive power --

SHARPTON: How so?

LICHTMAN: Two things, you already mentioned smaller precedents for deferring deportation. But the most sweeping change in immigration policy without changing the law of Congress was made by a Republican president.

Herbert Hoover in 1930 said no one gets into this country unless they have the money to support themselves. That cut immigration without changing the law by 90 percent.

SHARPTON: Let me read something you said a few months ago about the president`s legacy. You said quote "I think Obama will go down as the most consequential democratic president in the 50 years for the following reasons. Number one, his policies are bailing out the auto industry, the financial industry and the stimulus stopped us from sliding into another depression. Secondly the affordable healthcare act." How might the immigration change figure into the president`s legacy?

LICHTMAN: I think it figures enormously into the president`s legacy. Immigration, like healthcare, has been a lingering saw (ph) on the American society and body politics. Congress, as you see, has absolutely been incapable of dealing with it. So following the precedent of previous presidents, the president is taking unilateral action that is going to burnish his legacy and live for a very, very long time.

Remember, you can toss around abstraction like amnesty, we`re talking about 500 million real people, real families, who either have to live in the shadows. They`re not going to be deported. That is impossible. Or have their lives legalizing regularize in some way.

SHARPTON: You know, after 1995, Republicans had taken control of the House that year and it gave them both chambers of Congress. President Clinton had to defend himself as relevant. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The constitution gives me relevance, the power of our ideas gives me relevance, the record we built over the last two years and the things we are trying to do to implement it give it relevance. The president is relevant here especially an activist president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Well, professor, there is no question here that President Obama is relevant.

LICHTMAN: Not just on immigration, but also, we saw on climate change, one of the most consequential problems facing humanity, with the Congress paralyzed, the president has acted. Let`s not forget, the Republicans can talk, but for six years they have not given Obama a tea cup of cooperation. He has got to act alone, because for all the rhetoric, they`re not going to come to his side. They have said openly their objective is to pace every possible defeat on this president.

SHARPTON: Still ahead, look out Republicans. Here comes Elizabeth Warren. A new role could be great news for Democrats.

Plus, right-wingers go to war against Bruce Springsteen. We`ll tell you what they`re doing and why they`re totally wrong.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Breaking news, a new report on that stunning security laps that led an intruder hopped a gate and actually get into the White House. The Times says a secret service officer with a canine could have stop the intruder. But quote "the officer did not realize that an intruder had made it over the fence because he was sitting in his van talking on his personal cell phone."

And quote "the officer did not have his radio earpiece in, and had left the second radio he was supposed to have in his locker."

The review also found that the secret service`s alarm systems and radios failed to function properly. We will stay on this story as we learn more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Since taking over Congress, Republicans have been promising to quote, "turn the economy around." But by most measures, the economy is booming. The Dow Jones is up 122 percent since the day President Obama took office. This year alone, 2.3 million jobs have been created. And prices at the pump are plummeting. Down to an average of $2.92 a gallon. That is all great news.

But to many Americans, too many are not feeling it. It is because of this. For middle income workers, wage growth has remained stagnant for over a decade. And look at this. The top 0.1 percent owns 22 percent of all wealth in the country. That is the same amount that the bottom 90 percent of Americans control.

These Americans, millions of them, need someone to speak for them. And Democrats need a strong voice to stop Republicans from pulling the rug from under them.

Today, Democrats elected Elizabeth Warren to a leadership role in the Senate. She will help to craft the party`s positions moving forward. Her plan, to fight for all Americans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Families all across this country are struggling. We have to make this government work for the American people. And that is what we`re here to fight for. That is what we`re all going to be here doing every single day. That is what we`re about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Fighting for all of the American people, not just the rich. That message of fairness is central to her and to the Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: This is my life`s work. It is what is happening to America`s middle class. And it is, it is at every part of it, giving young people an opportunity to get an education. It is about seniors having the opportunity to retire with some dignity.

We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty. That means raising the minimum wage, and we will fight for it. So, the way I see this, is we can whine bit. Or we can fight back, I`m fighting back. I`m ready to fight back. Are you ready to fight on this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Joining me now are Ryan Grim and Tara Dowdell, thank you both for being here this evening.

TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you, Rev.

SHARPTON: Ryan, you interviewed Elizabeth Warren this afternoon, what did she have to say about her new role?

RYAN GRIM, "THE HUFFINGTON POST": Her goal here was to have a seat at the table when democrats are making decisions on what they`re going to be fighting for. Okay, let`s say you have eight different things they could for, one and say a messaging thing about carry-on bags, the other is increasing Social Security payments, she`ll be pushing. Let`s do the bigger picture, let`s go for Social Security, let`s go for Wall Street accountability. Because you know a minority caucus in the Senate can only do so much. So she wants them to pick their battles more wisely.

SHARPTON: Tara, "The Washington Post" said a key part of the GOP success in the mid-terms was this, quote, "the failure of the democrat`s economic message to win over persuadable voters. Pollsters describe this as a serious problem affecting the Democratic Party. That must be addressed heading into 2016." How will Elizabeth Warren help dictate the democrats` economic message moving forward, Tara?

DOWDELL: Well, one thing I have always said, Reverend. It is not just about messaging, it is about message penetration. And what I mean by that is, the reason why you heard the republicans saying Benghazi over and over and over again is because to cut through the noise you have to constantly be on message, saying the same thing over and over again that you stand for, message discipline, message penetration. Elizabeth Warren has not once deviated from her message of economic fairness, from her message of saying that she wants to provide a pathway for working poor people to become middle class, the middle class people to move up even further. She has never deviated from that message. And so that is why she would be such a great advocate, because if you go here and there and everywhere with your message, then you have no message. And it doesn`t reach the people it needs to reach. And like I said many times, we don`t have a rich enough people or a rich enough problem in this country, as democrats we need to drill that point home more and she`s the right person to do it.

SHARPTON: Elizabeth Warren wrote an op-ed for "The Washington Post," last weekend. One, Ryan, quote, "before leaders and Congress and the President get caught up and proving they can pass some new laws, everyone should take a skeptical look at who the new laws will serve. There is no shortage of work that Congress can do, but the agenda should not be drawn up by a bunch of corporate lobbyists and lawyers. This government belongs to the American people and it is time to work on America`s agenda." How will Warren shape public debate as republicans move ahead with things like the Ryan budget and giveaways to big oil?

GRIM: Well, you know, there will be somewhat of a push to do bipartisan things over the next couple of months just for the sake of doing bipartisan things. And so Elizabeth Warren is going to be at the table saying no, we`re not going to do this bipartisan thing just because the other party wants to do it. It also ought to be something that is good for people. So she will be trying to argue the opposite approach. Now, we did a survey right after the election that asked people two questions. They said what did republicans run on? And your perception, what did democrats run on? Voters said overwhelmingly, republicans ran on the economy. Democrats, meanwhile, they ran on social issues and women`s issues. This is something that Elizabeth Warren can kind of flip. She constantly is talking about economic issues. And this is one of the only ways you can explain, how it is with voters who agree with democrats with all the economic issues vote with the republicans. Even though they agree with the democrats because they said oh, well, the republicans are the ones that are talking about the economy. So, now Warren will talk about the economy.

SHARPTON: Tara, you talked about getting the message across, Warren has not been afraid to take on republicans. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: You may remember Senator Cruz is the guy responsible for last fall`s government shutdown, to talk about a financial genius. I have to tell you, given what Mitch McConnell has been doing in the United States Senate the way it is just block, block, block, no, no, no, Paul Ryan says, don`t blame Wall Street, the guys who made billions of dollars cheating American families. That may be Paul Ryan`s vision on how America works but that is not our vision of how this great country.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: I mean, she doesn`t pull any punches, Tara. And one of the things that just annoys me beyond words is the other democrats that have shown no back bone, no stand-up. Will her presence in the leadership get some of them to go toe to toe and to stand up to stand for something?

DOWDELL: I think it absolutely will. I mean there are always going to be a few rogues in the party which we always have. But I think some people out there saying, oh, this is a ceremonial position. That is what`s being sort of portrayed by some folks. And I will tell you this, Elizabeth Warren is not the type of person that will allow herself to be marginalized or not have a seat at the table. So when you give her a seat at the table, she`s going to stay at that table. And so, I think she`s going to force democrats who are scared, because let`s face it, some democrats are scared to run on what we are as democrats. But she is going to force them to have the take a stand. And I think when the effectiveness of her strategy is seen, which it will be seen, you can tell by her own popularity and the fact that you don`t see the level of a tax against her that you see against other democrats, because people respect her, even if they don`t like her, they respect her and they know she is authentic. And I think she will force other democrats to kind of come in line on many of these issues which will make sense. And it helps the country.

SHARPTON: You know, polls, quickly Ryan, say that Americans don`t feel good about the economic future of the country, exit polls last week. What has to happen and what can Elizabeth Warren contribute to that happening?

GRIM: So governing is moving away from Congress and towards the executive branch and towards the judiciary. Elizabeth Warren`s position in leadership gives her more power to influence these regulatory agencies that are going to have more and more impact on people`s lives every day.

SHARPTON: Ryan Grim and Tara Dowdell, thank you both for your time this evening.

DOWDELL: Thank you.

SHARPTON: Straight ahead, President Obama is ready to act on immigration and republicans are threatening a shutdown. Is it a good strategy?

Plus, the governor of Arkansas is pardoning his son. Is it fair? Or is it special treatment?

And the right wingers rising up to slam Bruce Springsteen. It makes no sense. We`ll debate it next in "Conversation Nation."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: It is time now for "Conversation Nation." Joining me tonight, host for Entertainment Weekly radio on Sirius XM, Julia Cunningham, HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps, and legal analyst Midwin Charles, thank you all for being here.

JULIA CUNNINGHAM, SIRIUS XM`S ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY RADIO: Thank you.

MIDWIN CHARLES, LEGAL ANALYST: Thank you.

JOSH ZEPPS, HUFFPOST LIVE HOST: You`re welcome.

SHARPTON: We start with the big political news. President Obama`s executive action. As we mentioned, "The New York Times" reporting President Obama`s immigration action could protect up to five million undocumented immigrants. And already the right is threatening government shutdowns and impeachment. Midwin, what do you think of the President`s strategy of pushing ahead even if it causes friction?

CHARLES: Well, I think his strategy is one of which someone who is trying to get something done for the country. I think he has tried all along to work with Congress with respect to trying to pass immigration reform and he has been unsuccessful in doing so. And whether or not he is going to sort of draw a fire from republicans for doing this. You know, I think President Obama is darned if he does or darned if he doesn`t. So, I think this is a way for him to try to get this done. Five million people`s lives and families are impacted by the failure for immigration reform to sort of go through.

ZEPPS: Well, maybe he is damned if he does or damned if he doesn`t, but we don`t know until we don`t try.

CHARLES: Try, what?

ZEPPS: Well, if he try to reach across the aisle --

CHARLES: But he has done that --

SHARPTON: Wait, wait -- let me let Josh finish his point.

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

ZEPPS: He has not done that in the final two years of his administration while the republicans controlled both houses of Congress. There is a vested interest from Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to actually have a Congress that does something, to go into the 2016 elections saying, we achieved something. Now, maybe they can`t rein in the Tea Party, maybe they can`t rein in the Ted Cruz, it`s entirely possible. But at least give them a chance. If you come out guns or blazing right now, you blow any opportunity to get collaboration on, for example --

SHARPTON: But Josh, they have a Senate bill that`s already passed, all they have to do is let that the House vote on it and pass it, I mean --

ZEPPS: In the last Senate, Reverend. I mean, you know, look, let`s treat this as a recess and at least offer a possibility of the glimmer of hope of some kind of a bipartisanship. If Obama is going to be remembered for doing anything in the final few years of his presidency, then he`s going to have to do something with the collaboration of Congress, it can`t all be the executive actions, otherwise you end up with the --

SHARPTON: All right. Let me get Julia because I want to move on, but the Senate is already voted that bill, Josh, but go ahead, Julia.

CUNNINGHAM: I was just going to say, if we need to make a point where we need to make a splash at a time to do, and this is an issue that`s very important to people and some that he`s going to actually make a splash with. And I think maybe acting a little rash might be a good thing.

SHARPTON: All right, now to Bruce Springsteen, under fire from the right, it all stems from the boss` performance at a concert for vets this week. He is saying the classic Vietnam era anthem, "Fortunate Son" that deals with the class issues and the draft.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

The Weekly Standard criticized Bruce saying, quote, "The song not to put too fine a point on it is an anti-war scream. Taking shots at the red, white and blue." And Bruce, tone deaf. And then came this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Bruce Springsteen headlines an anti-war song on Veterans Day in front of our vets. So much for HBO`s concert for valor.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Nobody had the brains to stop and say, you guys might want to pick a different song.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: How come Bruce Springsteen couldn`t find a song that wasn`t derogatory to military?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Julia, was it tone deaf?

CUNNINGHAM: No, it is un-American to say this song is un-American, this is a song you do at an event like this. Reverend, it`s insane. I mean, the song is not anti-war. I mean, it isn`t some ways but it`s really about saying that this people who fought for us that are back home need to be treated with respect. And that is the point of him singing the song was. A lot of times, you know, in the terms of the music it is about not having that option. Like it was like a practical thing to go into war, not just because of the enthusiasm into war, and that is what has been show cased with Bruce Springsteen performing this song, I thought it was fine.

SHARPTON: But josh, the republicans on the right that criticized, did they hear the song? He talks about senators` kids being able to duck the draft -- he is not talking about the --

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

ZEPPS: That`s the way that the military works. Look, this is a song that is pro-soldier and anti-tragedy that we put military families through. Unless you believe that the Pentagon is always consistent with what is pro-American and is always operating in the interest of military families and always makes the right call then it is ridiculous to say this is anti-American. It is pro-American because it is pro-freedom.

SHARPTON: Midwin?

CHARLES: Well, I personally don`t see what is the problem with a song being anti-war. Who wants to be pro-war? I think the point of the song is that we should go into war cautiously and be overly abundantly cautious whenever we want to send our loved ones, our troops into war. And I think that`s what the song is about. And if he sang it, at this concert, which was free to honor veterans and to honor people who have served in the Armed Forces, then I think that is a wonderful thing.

ZEPPS: It is about the nuance. Isn`t it? I mean, it is just about having a bit of nuance in our relationship and the military.

SHARPTON: But Julia, isn`t it something that we could consider that Bruce Springsteen has now become a big supporter of certain democratic candidates and democratic causes, isn`t there some partisan nuance here?

CUNNINGHAM: Sure, I mean, no, that is a fair statement. I mean, he is definitely aligned with certain parties but at the same point, he is also associated with certain strengths and that is lyricism, and I think he took this song because he knows it meant something. I think it`s better than, you know, Rihanna was there also and was just performing hits, like that necessarily meant anything. And I think, you know, the people on the crowd appreciate Rihanna to have that just source of entertainment. When you have Bruce Springsteen coming to an event like this and he doesn`t do something political I would be disappointed.

SHARPTON: All right. Josh, let`s move on from one son to another, let`s go to the Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe`s son. He will pardon his son Kyle from a felony drug charge from over a decade ago. He was charge for possessing marijuana with intent to deliver. In a letter wrote to his father, Kyle wrote, "At the time of my arrest I was living in a fantasy world. Not reality. I was young and dumb. I am asking for a chance to be a better son to my parents and to prove to them I am the person they raised me to be." The governor says, he has pardoned more than 700 people, and this one is no different.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. MIKE BEEBE (D), ARKANSAS: If they straighten up to get their life back on track and have a second chance, so this is no different. It is different because it is my son.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: Josh, is this legitimate or special treatment?

ZEPPS: It seems to be legitimate, much as I would love to jump on this guy and scream nepotism? The reality is that, I mean, his son doesn`t abrogate his own rights just because his father happens to be the governor. You know, he has to be treated fairly and it does seem that if this were another case, the governor has pardoned more than 700 other people over the course of his governorship. So, you know, we can`t treat him unfairly just because he`s a governor`s son. It doesn`t seem to be out of bounce to me.

CUNNINGHAM: It was also, it should be noted that with this going through, there are also nine similar cases that were also pushed through. So, I think if there were just like, his kind of slipped under the door, it would be a little bit more shady --

ZEPPS: That`s right.

CUNNINGHAM: But it`s also seemed to be completely legitimate.

CHARLES: This is all absurd, this is all absurd, this is nepotism with a capital N, I mean, if this doesn`t smack nepotism, I just don`t know.

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

SHARPTON: Why is it nepotism, Midwin?

CHARLES: Because it is his father --

ZEPPS: So, you want him to stay behind bars --

CHARLES: When you are in a position of power and you are an official, you always want to make decisions that don`t appear as though there are appearances of impropriety. What he should have done is recuse themselves from this position and not done it all. Imagine if every teenager got this opportunity, wow!

ZEPPS: They do --

CUNNINGHAM: Not every teenager.

ZEPPS: Some pay the price for the fact that he happens to have a governor for a dad.

CHARLES: It`s his son. And that is what nepotism is, is you have a family member you gives you a special, you know, favor, because that person is in power.

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

SHARPTON: Wait, wait, wait, is it the appearances of a conflict of interest that is troubling, or because he has pardoned 700 people, but I am sure there is a lot more. So is the appearance at all a factor here?

CHARLES: Talking to me?

SHARPTON: Yes.

CHARLES: It is not the -- it`s the appearance and the actual fact. And the fact that he has done this, I think what it does is it sends this message that hey, I`m in a position of power and I`m going to do this for my son. What he should have done is taken the better decision and recused himself and not done this at all.

SHARPTON: All right, I have to go. Everyone, please stay with me. Up next, when the billion dollar divorce is not enough. That is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: We`re back with our "Conversation Nation" panel, Julia, Josh and Midwin. Final topic, when one billion dollars isn`t enough. One billion with a b, we told you how oil tycoon Harold Hamm and his wife are divorcing after 26 years of marriage. He`s the country`s 24th richest man, worth over $18 billion, a judge ruled must pay her $995.9 million. But now, her lawyer says quote, Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case. She dedicated 25 years as Harold`s faithful partner in family and business. She plans to appeal the court`s decision."

Midwin, what is the legal angle? Does the wife here deserve more money from this divorce?

CHARLES: Well, Rev, I was here two days ago and, you know, we spoke about this case. And what I did was outline basically what courts look at when they`re looking to do a divorce settlements. And what they look at is, what was the spouse`s contribution during the course of the marriage, and often times, it is half. I mean, you can`t after 25 years of marriage say that your spouse didn`t have something to do with what you have achieved during those 25 years.

SHARPTON: But you said often, which means that it doesn`t have to always be that way if they determine you did something worthy of her.

CHARLES: No, it is actually almost always the case, and the court will look into that. Especially if the wife stayed at home which wasn`t the case here. I mean, she was an attorney, she worked at the company for a long time. But what the courts are going to do is they recognize that there is a value that a spouse brings to a marriage, and usually it is half. And frankly she is entitled to half. I would be surprised if she gets half, though.

SHARPTON: Josh, would you take the billion dollars and run?

ZEPPS: I would take the billion dollars and run all the way to Rio for the rest of my life. It would be fantastic, this is, you`re setting aside the legal implications, you know, for a moment, just the morality of this. Because the legal implications in the United States are very different from a lot of other countries.

SHARPTON: Yes.

ZEPPS: We have to ask ourselves, are we feminists or not? Do we believe that women are as capable as men at achieving great things or not. In which case, the idea of splitting things right in the middle -- a billion dollars is a lot of money. They`re not have done any work?

CHARLES: What do you mean they`re not have done any work?

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

You ask any married couple, that is a lot of work.

SHARPTON: Let me let Julia get in because I`m going to run out of time.

CHARLES: It is. It is.

SHARPTON: Julia?

ZEPPS: -- Hard working poor women don`t do as much work?

CUNNINGHAM: Reverend.

SHARPTON: Wait a minute. Just a minute, Josh, Julia, because I`m going to run out of time and you haven`t spoken to this.

CUNNINGHAM: Reverend, it is the fact that she worked as an executive, and I think Josh gets to mention that she didn`t just work at home. Josh, she worked as an executive in this company, in the marketing department. You have to take off all those zeros and think about it, if they were splitting $10, would she get five? Yes, she deserves $9 billion, is she going to get it? Maybe, and I don`t know if necessarily she needs it but yes, she is entitled to get it.

CHARLES: It`s the principle of the thing --

(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)

SHARPTON: All right. It`s a hot one but we got to go. Thank you, all. Julia, Josh, and Midwin. Josh disagreed a lot tonight. I think he has an Al Sharpton complex.

(LAUGHTER)

We`ll be right back with the FBI`s secret war against Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHARPTON: Finally tonight, a disturbing revelation from the FBI`s long secret war against the civil rights movement. And in particular against the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The FBI followed him, wiretapped him, smeared him as a communist, and worse. The "New York Times" just published a newly uncovered unredacted letters were sent anonymously to King in 1964. The letter was written as if it were from a disgruntled former supporter but it was really written by the FBI agents. In the letter, they called Dr. King, quote, "an evil, abnormal beast," and said, "You are done, there is but one way out for you, you better take it before your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is banned from the nation." One way out, a clear suggestion that Dr. King commit suicide. The FBI director at the time John Edgar Hoover (ph) made no secret of his desire to take King down. King suspected the letter came from the FBI and refused to be intimidated. Instead, he fought harder than ever and hit back at Hoover directly. When the FBI director called him a liar in public, he hit back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., FORMER AFRICAN-AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER: Well, I was quite shocked and surprised to learn of this statement from Mr. Hoover questioning my integrity. And very frankly, I don`t understand what motivated the statement. The only thing that I can see is that Mr. Hoover is probably faltering under the awesome responsibilities, complexities and demands of his very important office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHARPTON: I remember discussing the letter with Martin Luther King III for years, but now that it has surfaced. It only brings home more, the sacrifices, stress, pain, set-ups and all kinds of entrapments people endured to get some of the rights we enjoyed. It should make us hold onto them and be aggressive about making sure their sacrifice was not in vain.

Thanks for watching. I`m Al Sharpton. "HARDBALL" starts right now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2014 ASC LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user`s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and ASC LLC`s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.>